Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection

This is a good article from a Washington D.C lawyer on the actual legal expectations the public citizen should have regarding the duty of law
enforcement agencies in responding to calls of crimes in progress.

Richard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999).

Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from
crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.

First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime.

Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack.

This varies from state to state (including D.C.), but even in governmental bodies areas known for their extremely liberal populations and
legislatures, it applies and is written into their actual laws.

The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no
general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”(5)

A Kansas statute precludes citizens from suing the government or the police for negligently failing to enforce the law or for failing to
provide police or fire protection.

A California law states that “neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or
otherwise provide police protection service.”(6) As one California appellate court wrote, “police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to
do anything.”(7)

The government is responsible for protecting the collective but not the individual. What is the difference?

Many states evade liability by relying on the ironically named “public duty” doctrine. Like a George Orwell slogan, that doctrine says:
police owe a duty to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

The general rule of law in the
United States is that government owes a duty to protect the public in general, but owes no legal duty to protect any particular person from criminal
attack. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime. As a federal appeals court
bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have “no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or
madmen.”(11)

So, if you feel that calling 911 and putting your trust into a government entity that has no legal responsibility to protect you, and in some cases
are not liable at all if they do not arrive at all, that it your prerogative. I can respect that position. It is the right decision for you,
and no reason or explanation is necessary. However, not everyone shares that viewpoint or perspective. All I (we) that cherish our 2nd amendment
protections ask for is reciprocal respect for our decisions to keep and bear arms to take that responsibility upon ourselves.

In many areas of this vast country, a response to a 911 call may take a very long time, too long to save one or more lives. Those that cannot rely
upon swift response need to take that responsibility upon themselves to protect self and family (and neighbors/friends) without waiting for the
arrival of the police. If you live in an area where you can regularly get rapid response to a 911 call to save your lives, then perhaps you do not
feel the need to take that responsibility upon yourselves. However, that is not the case for everyone.

Even in some of the very liberal jurisdictions around this country take this legal position, such as:

A Massachusetts statute spells out the rule there: the government has no legal duty “to provide adequate police protection, prevent the
commission of crimes, investigate, detect or solve crimes, identify or apprehend criminals or suspects, arrest or detain suspects, or enforce any
law.”(8)

So, what does the police recommend if they cannot guarantee you personal protection? In a very tragic and preventable case, in the very firearms
restrictive state of Massachusetts when a piece of paper fails to protect someone?

The Massachusetts court in Ford v. Town of Grafion held the city was not liable. The court order that was supposed to restrain James and
protect Catherine did not amount to an “assurance of safety or assistance” from the police department. According to the court, when the police
advised Catherine “to get a gun for protection,” that was a warning to her that the police were unable to assure her safety or protect her.
Because she got no assurances of safety from the police, she had no legal right to rely on the police to protect her.

Case dismissed.

If we are to have respectful discussion on this issue, then we all need to get informed about not only the existing laws already on the books, but
also the obligations the police have in regards to replying to an emergency call.

Knowledge and Respect (not emotions) will allow us to discuss this topic to find a suitable middle ground that attempts to mitigate the risk. The
ability to understand and accept that there is not such thing as 100% safety in life will also help. All we can do is reduce the risk by using common
sense approaches such as (but not limited to):

situational awareness

acceptance of risk

prioritizing the risk based upon actual real probability of that risk actually becoming life threatening

understanding the existing firearms restrictions (laws) in place already

understanding the media is only looking to make $$$, and fear makes them that money

life is precious, we should do what we can to protect it without restricting the constitutional protections for everyone

not react in a knee-jerk manner, based upon media generated fear

understand the proper terminology of firearms (i.e. the difference between semi-auto and auto)

In LA, the police served the Elite first. During the LA Riots, many working class Koreans and other minorities were abandoned by the police because
the police ended up guarding Hollyweird and other rich areas leaving them to fend for themselves.

The reason why the riots stopped was due to the National Guard coming in to restore order.

In LA, the police served the Elite first. During the LA Riots, many working class Koreans and other minorities were abandoned by the police because
the police ended up guarding Hollyweird and other rich areas leaving them to fend for themselves.

The reason why the riots stopped was due to the National Guard coming in to restore order.

And that resulted in some of the Korean business owners defending themselves and business from looters by using firearms.

If we are to have respectful discussion on this issue, then we all need to get informed about not only the existing laws already on the books,
but also the obligations the police have in regards to replying to an emergency call.

Police aren't the first people on the scene, victims are.

You want to defend yourself, instead of grabbing a phone, grab a firearm.

If we are to have respectful discussion on this issue, then we all need to get informed about not only the existing laws already on the books,
but also the obligations the police have in regards to replying to an emergency call.

Police aren't the first people on the scene, victims are.

You want to defend yourself, instead of grabbing a phone, grab a firearm.

I agree, 100%. Do not misunderstand the OP on this perspective. I am NOT advocating for more government protections at all. Only trying to provide
knowledge on what their legal obligations are to provide an educated discussion.

Typicallty by the time a call is placed it is already an emergency. Whatever is happening is already happening.

The police are going to respond eventually, but they are "responders" , not preventers.

The Massachusetts court in Ford v. Town of Grafion held the city was not liable. The court order that was supposed to restrain James and protect
Catherine did not amount to an “assurance of safety or assistance” from the police department. According to the court, when the police advised
Catherine “to get a gun for protection,” that was a warning to her that the police were unable to assure her safety or protect her.

Restraining orders aren't bullet proof. Police cannot be liable for protecting everyone all the time. They know this. Thats why the advice to get a
firearm for protection. The problem with that from a police perspective, is the more firearms at the scene the more dangerous they perceive their job
to be.

As far as they are concerned, the less firearms in public hands, the less chance they will be injured or killed.

That pretty much sums it up, they are responders not preventors, that should inform any thinking person with all the knowledge they need when dealing
with police.

There are scenarios and there are scenarios. 'IF' one is lucky to wake up in the middle of the night to the sounds of home invaders coming thru a
door, and 'IF' they can get to a firearm, load it and prepare themselves for whats coming, and 'IF' they have a little extra time after all that, then
also call 911.

Otherwise don't bother, the sound of the phone call might alert the intruders to your presence. If that happens you can always say,"I'm armed, and oh
yah, police are on their way".

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.